1. Assessment and Accountability Update
Chun-Wu Li, Ph.D.
Administrator II, Assessment and Accountability
Assessment Accountability Continuous Improvement Unit
Division of Educational Services
May 23, 2018

2. (See Handout “CDE Program Updates – May 2018”)
Assessment Update
(See Handout “CDE Program Updates – May 2018”)

3. (See Handout “ELPAC Update – May 2018”)

4. Accountability Update (See Handout “Accountability Update – May 2018”)

5. Topics One-Year Graduation Rate for DASS Schools
Changes to 2018 California School Dashboard (Dashboard)
Incorporation of participation rate into Academic Indicator
We have a lot of ground to cover today. We’ll look at:
Some of the new features and reports in the Fall 2017 Dashbaord
Actions taken by the Board last week, which included revisions to the ESSA plan (in response to feedback from the US. Department of ED) and criteria used to identify the lowest performing schools

6. One-Year Graduation Rate

7. Dashboard Reports for DASS Schools
Beginning in 2018, all DASS schools will receive a Dashboard report.
DASS schools did not receive a 2017 Spring or Fall Dashboard.

8. Modified Methods for DASS Schools
DASS schools will be held accountable for all state indicators currently reported in the Dashboard.
However, “modified methods” will be used for select state indicators.
To more fairly evaluate the success and progress of alternative schools that serve high-risk students.

9. SBE Action and Next Steps
At the May 2018 meeting, the SBE approved a one-year graduation rate for DASS schools for implementation beginning with the 2018 Dashboard.
Next Steps: Work with the Alternative Schools Task Force, the LCFF Stakeholder Group, and the Technical Design Group (TDG) to determine:
How to include the one-year graduation rate in the district’s Dashboard.
If other indicators need to have modified methods
If indicators for DASS schools need their own cut scores.

10. Changes to the 2018 Dashboard
On February 22, 2018, CDE and SBE staff met with U.S. Department of Education (ED) staff in Washington, DC to discuss ED interim feedback to the ESSA Plan.
Based on ED guidance from this meeting, several changes to California’s Plan were proposed to the SBE at its March 2018 meeting.

11. Chronic Absenteeism
Cut scores for both Status and Change will be recommended to the SBE in fall 2018
2018 Dashboard will report for the first time:
Status,
Change, and
Performance levels (colors)
Cut scores will be determined at the November SBE meeting

12. New Data Reported for CCI
2018 Dashboard will report:
Status (Class of 2018) and Change
Performance levels (colors)
Possible new career measures for the Class of 2017
State Seal of Biliteracy
Articulated Career Technical Education (CTE) courses
Golden State Seal Merit Diploma
Leadership/Military Science (formerly ROTC)
Change cut scores will be determined at the November SBE meeting

13. Graduation Rate Indicator
Calculation for Change based on one-year rate (rather than the three-year average).
Note: New federal requirements necessitate changes to the calculation of the four-year cohort rate. See Flash 136 at
Incorporation of five-year cohort rate: To be determined
Scheduled for consideration at the September SBE meeting

14. Safety Net Methodology Applied at Student Group Level (n ≥ 150)
For two state indicators:
Graduation Rate Indicator: If student group has fewer than students in graduating cohort
Suspension Rate Indicator: If student group has fewer than students who are cumulatively enrolled.
SBE will consider at the July SBE meeting

15. Incorporation of Participation Rate into Academic Indicator

16. Incorporation of Participation Rate into Academic Indicator
In accordance with ED direction:
Use of icons not sufficient to meet ESSA requirements
Participation rate must be factored into Academic Indicator
Specifically, for schools and student groups that did not test 95 percent, the number of students needed to bring the school and/or student group up to 95 percent shall be included in the Academic Indicator.

17. Proposed Option
Calculate the percentage points the school or student group is below the 95 percent participation rate target and reduce the DF3 by a fraction of the number of points short (i.e., ¼ the number of points short of participation rate)

18. ELA Example Emerald Elementary School (K-6): Current DF3 = 16.9
Number of students enrolled during testing window:
357
Number of students tested:
281
Calculated participation rate (rounded):
79%
Number of additional students needed for 95% participation: 55
(281+55) / 357 = 94.1%
Number of tested and continuously enrolled students (valid):
258
DF3 sum of 258 valid tests
4355

19. Example: Calculation of the Adjusted DF3
For this example, the DF3 is being reduced by ¼ point for each percentage point the school is below the 95 percent participation rate target.
Adjusted DF3 Calculation
16 points shortage X .25 = 4 points
16.9 Current DF3 – 4 points reduction = 12.9 (High)

20. Pros and Cons—Using Adjusted DF3
All entities receive equal penalty for missing the 95 percent participation rate.
The further away an entity is from the 95 percent participation rate, the greater the penalty.
Simple to calculate.
Minimizes the impact of the of incorporating the participation rate into the Academic Indicator.
May be more complicated to explain.

21. 2018-2019 CALPADS Meeting Dates
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Wednesday, May 1, 2019